The site shown above is an official site concerning ongoing work at GT. I find the content both poignant and "ironic," as a colleague stated. Here is a web site about arguably the most important archaeological site in the world which is concerned with masks, etc that fit the description of the oft maligned figure stone. The images on the site show representational and stylistic techniques well familiar to those arguing for the credence of found rock art despite the objections of orthodoxy in reasoning that pareidolia, delusion, and ambition plague the heretics who would suggest such nonsense. Powers that be note that these subject stones are, in fact, geofacts. How these pieces were sculpted in baas relief, intaglio, ground, polished, chipped, carved, and painted with ochre, etc is apparently easily explained by the skeptics as a fall from a cliff, freeze/thaw, or a roll down a stream or river bed. Geomorphologists retired these explanations as incorrect a while back with laboratory and field work.

These artifacts on the GT site and their serious study should release those concerned with "forbidden" rock art from ridicule and debasement at the hands of academia. Of course this would require orthodoxy to seriously consider the worldwide presence of figure stones, their past creators, and motif/technique similarities across many oceans.

The figural art finds at Gobekli Tepe are accepted because the finds were made by accredited professionals using proper documentation techniques in situ.

You, on the other hand, expect to be lauded & hailed for making unsupported claims of natural objects being man-made with zero context. (with furtive, paranoid claims about protecting a site)

How the hell can you make such claims & expect to be given the benefit of the doubt? How the hell can you expect to be believed? You seem to believe that all is required from you is to post crappy, out of focus photos, along with long boring descriptions of what you & nobody else can see.

Anyone looking for an archaeological find would be ecstatic to have it come from secure stratigraphy, but most lack that particular context. Are these finds without stratigraphic context to be ignored? If funding limitations are a reality, should one be digging without the means to properly test or hire a qualified professional? The point being made is that the similarity of finds to the well studied GT rocks should allow the layman to continue his or her work without ridicule from the armchair. People don't spend their time looking for rock artifacts to become societal heroes.

Does an object with "zero context" exist? When, where, how, and a partial what are context, just not your specialized idea of such. Further context may be seen in finds/square foot, associations with natural features, rock types and availability, and the like.

"Lauded and hailed:" This is not the Roman Empire, and one who makes assumptions may be uncovering their own projections and transferrances. "Paranoid" seems a bit harsh for an archaeological forum where rocks are spoken of. "Reality" is elusive and use of the word in this case smacks of an arrogant stance.

One works with available resources when time allows. This thread is not a doctoral dissertation. Perspective through interaction might describe a desirable forum process.

Once again, because of the similarity observed between artifacts of provenance and unintended (initially) rock finds, should this similarity not be investigated? Will the "benefit of the doubt" be awarded to the archaeologist with 40 years experience and over forty books and hundreds of scholarly papers on stone tools and material culture who identified provable Pleistocene artifacts on the subject site?

"Belief" is not the mission; this is no religion. Possibilities are a goal for now, sans insults.

The site shown above is an official site concerning ongoing work at GT. I find the content both poignant and "ironic," as a colleague stated. Here is a web site about arguably the most important archaeological site in the world which is concerned with masks, etc that fit the description of the oft maligned figure stone. The images on the site show representational and stylistic techniques well familiar to those arguing for the credence of found rock art despite the objections of orthodoxy in reasoning that pareidolia, delusion, and ambition plague the heretics who would suggest such nonsense. Powers that be note that these subject stones are, in fact, geofacts. How these pieces were sculpted in baas relief, intaglio, ground, polished, chipped, carved, and painted with ochre, etc is apparently easily explained by the skeptics as a fall from a cliff, freeze/thaw, or a roll down a stream or river bed. Geomorphologists retired these explanations as incorrect a while back with laboratory and field work.

These artifacts on the GT site and their serious study should release those concerned with "forbidden" rock art from ridicule and debasement at the hands of academia. Of course this would require orthodoxy to seriously consider the worldwide presence of figure stones, their past creators, and motif/technique similarities across many oceans.

While relatively crude, most of the stone heads seen on that page documenting the research at GT can be clearly recognized as having been crafted by man. I can see that much, and with 60 years experience working with both rocks and artifacts, and honing the ability to distinguish between artifact and geofact(really, it isn't that difficult when all is said and done), I should be able to see that much. Or I've learned nothing at all in those 60 years. With your presentations, on the other hand, I have never seen anything other then rocks. I don't know how you can suggest there is any comparison at all between what you've shown, and the figural stones from GT. I hope I've never ridiculed you during this long running thread. Nor debased you. I just think you're very mistaken. I've seen the exact same thing play out on dozens of occasions on forums dedicated to artifacts. Some people are simply unable to distinguish rock from artifact from geofact. Some folks get ridiculously bent out of shape when informed they are mistaken about their rocks. I can at least appreciate that you never have, at least not in this thread. Which is nice, but I just don't think you have a case. Good luck, though.

@Springhead: you've been told time & time again by multiple members of this board that we don't see what you 'see'. Some have have told you this politely & some have told you this rudely. Repeat... We don't see what you see. That is not bias. That is not Das Klub trying to exclude you from their hallowed ranks. There is simply NOTHING there for us to see. You've posted dozens of examples. We don't see it. You've posted reams & reams of explanatory descriptions. We don't see it. You've posted photos of your rocks with what you perceive as man-made images highlighted & outlined. We still don't see it. Are you spotting a trend here? If you're the only one who 'sees it' to the exclusion of all others, how do you account for that? For some reason you seem to feel a need to gain some kind of recognition for your rocks from the members of this board or you wouldn't have continued to try to to gain that acceptance, acknowledgement or recognition here.

What is your motivation? Why beat your head against a brick wall trying to force that acceptance, acknowledgement or recognition that you're obviously not going to get? Your behavior is counterintuitive & counterproductive. Go through other channels. Try to find a reputable archaeologist or paleoanthropologist who will confirm your contentions. From what I've been able to glean from this thread, Jack Hranacky is only willing to vouch for a mere handful of tools as being 'provable Pleistocene'... So where does that fit in with the rocks that you claim to be man-made figural artwork? Hmmm?

Please try to put yourself in our place. Your claims are so outlandish that they border on the ridiculous. Your contention that your 'artists' are homo erectus or homo erectus hybrids who obligingly & fortuitously settled on land that you just so happen to own is Twilight Zone worthy... Your contention that said hominids also terraced & farmed your land is laughable. Lets not forget that they also carved huge figural monoliths that have significant celestial alignments... Have I left out any important details?

Give us a break from your fantasies. There are websites that will welcome you with open arms. Why not regale them with your 'finds'?

Thank you for your response. I do not feel I have been mistreated by you despite your resolute stance of skepticism concerning claims and speculations I have made in this thread. I have absolutely no problem with your opinions and I respect your 60 year involvement in archaeology and knowledge gained over time.

I would like to prevail upon you another time if you can stand it. I made the mistake early on in the thread not choosing words, images, and speculations in a more logical sequence. I do have some images in a gallery at the above address, twenty seven or so, that I would ask you to look at. Some have been posted on this thread, but the majority will be new to you. Unfortunately there is no text with the images, but I think you will be interested. There is one image of three stones utilized in a fire pit where the left stone in particular is relatable to images on the GT site. After going to the site, click on galleries, then members submissions, then gallery eight, fourth down.

If you do not see anything of interest, I apologize for taking your time. The images show finds from the mountain site in Virginia and the coastal inlet site in NC. Unfortunately the locations of finds are not noted with the images.

Thanks

Hello Circumspice,

Thanks for your comments. I am not seeking blanket approval or acceptance with members of this forum nor am I involved in some far fetched fantasy of my own making, though the nature of the finds requires me to report what seems like a fantasy to some remaining forum members. Some of my speculations are unable to be proved now or probably the near future. My persistence in trying to evaluate various components of these sites speaks from my intuition, common sense, and logic. I have no credentials other than a BA in Art History, so to any academic I have little if any credibility. However, in the "real" world of curiosity, practicality, extensive travel, and artistic endeavor, I have been able to get along quite well with a broad cross section of people. This boils down to: I trust my intuitions, and here on this thread, however poorly expressed, I have dropped my guard in hopes of feedback. I was not disappointed other than some of the needless personal comments trying to characterize me as some kook.

I hope you will look at the site at the above address. Instructions are in my answer to Shawomet. No, I have not come upon a

three D laser and camera setup, so coffee table images are not the order of the day. I do think you may see something of interest in these images. If so, great, if not, sorry to take your time.

I have put myself in your place as best I could without knowing anyone. I can see that my speculations are not digestable to the forum members. If you put yourself in my place, would you, with strong intuitions about some assemblage, allow yourself to be muzzled by criticism if the arguments being made against your ideas did not satisfy your intellect or personal experience with the site and what it may be yielding?

I have put myself in your place as best I could without knowing anyone. I can see that my speculations are not digestable to the forum members. If you put yourself in my place, would you, with strong intuitions about some assemblage, allow yourself to be muzzled by criticism if the arguments being made against your ideas did not satisfy your intellect or personal experience with the site and what it may be yielding?

@Springhead: In answer to your question:

I must say that if I had found what you believe to have found & if I had trotted it all out & if I had presented it to numerous people on a board such as this & if I had received the same blanket concensus that there is no evidence of the rocks being man-made or altered in any way by humans, yet I still firmly believed that I had found evidence of homo erectus artwork including magnifying devices to enable micro artwork, homo erectus terracing & farming practices & homo erectus astronomical observatories on my property... All without a shred of evidence, without any accredited professionals willing & eager to do the excavations... I would begin to question my sanity.

If you do the same thing repeatedly, always expecting a different outcome every time, it's time for you to reassess.

I've never been one to see shapes in rocks. Maybe if it said "Kilroy was here" I'd get it.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

Thank you for your response. I do not feel I have been mistreated by you despite your resolute stance of skepticism concerning claims and speculations I have made in this thread. I have absolutely no problem with your opinions and I respect your 60 year involvement in archaeology and knowledge gained over time.

I would like to prevail upon you another time if you can stand it. I made the mistake early on in the thread not choosing words, images, and speculations in a more logical sequence. I do have some images in a gallery at the above address, twenty seven or so, that I would ask you to look at. Some have been posted on this thread, but the majority will be new to you. Unfortunately there is no text with the images, but I think you will be interested. There is one image of three stones utilized in a fire pit where the left stone in particular is relatable to images on the GT site. After going to the site, click on galleries, then members submissions, then gallery eight, fourth down.

If you do not see anything of interest, I apologize for taking your time. The images show finds from the mountain site in Virginia and the coastal inlet site in NC. Unfortunately the locations of finds are not noted with the images.

Thanks

Hello Circumspice,

Thanks for your comments. I am not seeking blanket approval or acceptance with members of this forum nor am I involved in some far fetched fantasy of my own making, though the nature of the finds requires me to report what seems like a fantasy to some remaining forum members. Some of my speculations are unable to be proved now or probably the near future. My persistence in trying to evaluate various components of these sites speaks from my intuition, common sense, and logic. I have no credentials other than a BA in Art History, so to any academic I have little if any credibility. However, in the "real" world of curiosity, practicality, extensive travel, and artistic endeavor, I have been able to get along quite well with a broad cross section of people. This boils down to: I trust my intuitions, and here on this thread, however poorly expressed, I have dropped my guard in hopes of feedback. I was not disappointed other than some of the needless personal comments trying to characterize me as some kook.

I hope you will look at the site at the above address. Instructions are in my answer to Shawomet. No, I have not come upon a

three D laser and camera setup, so coffee table images are not the order of the day. I do think you may see something of interest in these images. If so, great, if not, sorry to take your time.

I have put myself in your place as best I could without knowing anyone. I can see that my speculations are not digestable to the forum members. If you put yourself in my place, would you, with strong intuitions about some assemblage, allow yourself to be muzzled by criticism if the arguments being made against your ideas did not satisfy your intellect or personal experience with the site and what it may be yielding?

Thanks again.

OK, just checked out your gallery. I did not see any artifacts or man made effigies. Photo #12 looked like it could be a segment of a stone wall, but you'd know better then me. Photo #13 was a good example of what not to pick up if one were looking for small artifacts. Just a suggestion, but your best bet would be to team up with an experienced artifact collector and be shown the ropes, someone who could help you learn through experience how to distinguish artifacts from rocks.

Edit: just read your last paragraph to circumspice. It's a case of you refusing to learn. Our arguments against don't satisfy you because you are convinced you know better. I can only assure you at this point that you are mistaken. The fault lies with you. You need to understand that you are wrong, and I don't believe you will ever do that. Nobody here is going to be able to help you understand that fact. It is indeed pointless of you to continue. We cannot help you because you will not help yourself. If you weren't so polite, I'd lean toward you being a troll by now. But, as the website that accepted your gallery demonstrates, your "delusion", if that's how it can be described, is shared by other folks as well. I confess, I don't know what causes this specie of "delusion", but, as I noted earlier, I have run across it many times.

I appreciate your taking the time to review the subject images posted on the Portable Rock Art Museum site. I am certainly not surprised at the unanimous reaction to those images. Granted, some of the images are not crisp, but many are in proper focus. A number of the pieces shown on the rock art site have been judged to be "provable Pleistocene" by Jack Hranicky after he personally reviewed them. As an upstart, I would not expect many folks to buy my line, but Jack is another story. His vast experience in tools and material culture in the mid Atlantic and his prolific writings and papers should lend some real credence to the subject pieces, especially those he labeled "provable."

I do not know all you fine folks' credentials, but I do listen to and consider the comments made on this thread in reply to my postings and take them seriously if for no other reason than giving you the benefit of the doubt. Only one forum member supported some of my views, but he was drummed out despite his many interesting threads and comments. Now the ranks have tightened and I see that there is a fairly orderly united front for coordinated control. There seems to be a comfort zone that folks seek within their own realms and amongst themselves. This thread does not support that comfort and therefore cannot be tolerated. I am grateful for those who continued commenting though, thank you.

I will not attempt now to comment on the images in detail. Though I respect your hard earned expertise, I would say that you are wrong. Many of my speculations are controversial, and of course no one has to believe anything. I will continue to work with this assemblage that appears in many Virginia sites. I will also continue to post if I think I can shed any new light on these finds. I do not want (as with you all) to rehash everything.

So, this delusional pareidoliac with ambition exceeding all bounds who stands on his head at twilight and dusk to "see" strange stuff that doesn't exist on rocks but satisfies his need to be a hero will continue, despite the call to desist, to use logic and common sense to move forward in understanding this clearly unappreciated work of ancient people.

Anyone looking for an archaeological find would be ecstatic to have it come from secure stratigraphy, but most lack that particular context. Are these finds without stratigraphic context to be ignored? If funding limitations are a reality, should one be digging without the means to properly test or hire a qualified professional? The point being made is that the similarity of finds to the well studied GT rocks should allow the layman to continue his or her work without ridicule from the armchair. People don't spend their time looking for rock artifacts to become societal heroes.

Does an object with "zero context" exist? When, where, how, and a partial what are context, just not your specialized idea of such. Further context may be seen in finds/square foot, associations with natural features, rock types and availability, and the like.

"Lauded and hailed:" This is not the Roman Empire, and one who makes assumptions may be uncovering their own projections and transferrances. "Paranoid" seems a bit harsh for an archaeological forum where rocks are spoken of. "Reality" is elusive and use of the word in this case smacks of an arrogant stance.

One works with available resources when time allows. This thread is not a doctoral dissertation. Perspective through interaction might describe a desirable forum process.

Once again, because of the similarity observed between artifacts of provenance and unintended (initially) rock finds, should this similarity not be investigated? Will the "benefit of the doubt" be awarded to the archaeologist with 40 years experience and over forty books and hundreds of scholarly papers on stone tools and material culture who identified provable Pleistocene artifacts on the subject site?

"Belief" is not the mission; this is no religion. Possibilities are a goal for now, sans insults.

Thanks for your thoughts.

@Springhead: You set the bar for all the preceeding discussions & you set the bar rather low because your rocks & your half baked theories cannot stand up to any serious scrutiny. You rely on finding like minded people for concurrence & to feed the endless feedback loop of assurances.

You actually sort of explained your state of mind with your statement quoted above. (highlighted in bold)

You see... For the vast majority of adults reality is not elusive. It is not fluid or shifting either. Reality is rather static in fact. It's usually perceptions that change, not the realities.

I would be concerned for the welfare of any children, elderly persons or animals placed in the care of someone who believes that reality is 'elusive', even though you seem to function on a fairly high level.

By the way, if you are referring to uniface as the board member who supported some of your 'theories' & was subsequently drummed out of the board... You might want to rethink that belief. Uniface was merely playing Devil's Advocate. He would have eventually left you hanging out to dry. He's only truly interested in promoting White Supremacy, No-Vaxx & various conspiracy theories. You really should research his posts before believing that he supported anything you say or do. Just sayin'...

I appreciate your taking the time to review the subject images posted on the Portable Rock Art Museum site. I am certainly not surprised at the unanimous reaction to those images. Granted, some of the images are not crisp, but many are in proper focus. A number of the pieces shown on the rock art site have been judged to be "provable Pleistocene" by Jack Hranicky after he personally reviewed them. As an upstart, I would not expect many folks to buy my line, but Jack is another story. His vast experience in tools and material culture in the mid Atlantic and his prolific writings and papers should lend some real credence to the subject pieces, especially those he labeled "provable."

I do not know all you fine folks' credentials, but I do listen to and consider the comments made on this thread in reply to my postings and take them seriously if for no other reason than giving you the benefit of the doubt. Only one forum member supported some of my views, but he was drummed out despite his many interesting threads and comments. Now the ranks have tightened and I see that there is a fairly orderly united front for coordinated control. There seems to be a comfort zone that folks seek within their own realms and amongst themselves. This thread does not support that comfort and therefore cannot be tolerated. I am grateful for those who continued commenting though, thank you.

I will not attempt now to comment on the images in detail. Though I respect your hard earned expertise, I would say that you are wrong. Many of my speculations are controversial, and of course no one has to believe anything. I will continue to work with this assemblage that appears in many Virginia sites. I will also continue to post if I think I can shed any new light on these finds. I do not want (as with you all) to rehash everything.

So, this delusional pareidoliac with ambition exceeding all bounds who stands on his head at twilight and dusk to "see" strange stuff that doesn't exist on rocks but satisfies his need to be a hero will continue, despite the call to desist, to use logic and common sense to move forward in understanding this clearly unappreciated work of ancient people.

Thank You Again

I don't know anything about coordinated control, I'm not coordinating with anyone else, and I don't know anything about comfort zones here, either. All I know is you haven't shown any actual artifacts or effigies, or man made images. Well, I guess I'm pretty comfortable with that conclusion, now that you mention it, but I'm not trying to buttress some consensus reality. It is what it is, rocks, not artifacts. That's not really my fault. Yes, Hranicky does have credibility, he just happens to be mistaken in this instance, although I haven't noticed him posting to this thread, either, so I wouldn't really know what he's telling you.